Yet you don't show that your view is held by the majority. You've referenced a quote that doesn't go anywhere near what you claim it does - the only thing it references is the idea that copyright is compatible merely because it was created at a similar time, not because that was the actual founders view (hint - it wasn't), nor does it show the founders arguing that monopolies like copyright should be considered equal to freedom of speech.
Good luck with proving a view that doesn't exist, or is based on at least a gross misrepresentation of the founders views of copyright.
If the First Amendment trumped copyright, then there would be no copyright as copyright limits speech.
So obviously fair use exists for no reason. Without fair use, copyright would be perfectly compatible with free speech, and requires no modification. Free speech is regularly cited as being needed to be held back by copyright because God forbid we have too much free speech.
Not to mention the part you quote is hardly accurate, Joe - proximity indicates nothing about the reasons that copyright was adapted, actual documents written by them do. Copyright was written granting certain economic conditions, and it's copyright that must be balanced against free speech - never the other way around.
So we already have laws that make certain activities illegal and have processes to deal with them, which already includes the ability to take down or attempt to block a site if ICE's work is any indication. What we really need to deal with these threats though is more laws for an already illegal activity that allows arbitrary determination of infringing activities that's even more open to abuse and where similar laws have already been struck down as unconstitutional in the past.
Wait, what? If you really do want to be anonymous, why aren't you using proxies right now? You actually intend for Mike to know who you are, but not anybody else, like he's your secret Santa or something?
Honestly, you're creeping me out a little here. This is getting into restraining order territory.
I think he's deliberately trying to create situations where he can pass himself off as the little guy in all this. He's actively trying to get Mike to lose his temper or otherwise so that he can use any reaction to discredit Mike for this silly vendetta.
I respect that people have the choice of whether or not to exercise their rights.
So too does Mike, he just doesn't agree with those choices and argues they should do otherwise. Do you not respect his right to free speech, charlatan?
I don't make the unsupported claim as Mike does that artists are never better off exercising those rights.
That was funny.
If some people embrace piracy and make money, then good for them. It's silly to think that that works for everyone, and it's silly to think other people shouldn't have a choice to do otherwise.
It's silly to think that the choice is a God given right - it isn't, it's one that only exists through law and for expressly limited, economic purposes.
And only a sociopath like Mike can't see that there is evidence all around him that IP works.
Then provide some. Not logical fallacies like "IP law exists and art is made" but actual, real, verifiable, trustworthy evidence. We've been waiting for some time.
Mike is a two-faced liar who can't even be honest about his true feelings, and I will continue to call him out on it. If his knowledge of economics is anything like his knowledge of law, and I suspect it is, then he's just an idiot who thinks he knows everything, but in substance, he is indeed utterly lacking.
You're being cute, I appreciate that, but I'm not moved. It's sad how much you rely on attacking personal reputation and talking up your personal vendetta into claiming Mike is a sociopath, whilst you constantly badger, demand and generally piss off others for no reason other than attention.
OK, so you don't deny that you don't think artists should have the rights that they have. What a pro-piracy point of view.
Ah, you don't deny that by not exercising those rights they may be better off. What a prop-piracy point of view.
Make more money by embracing and accepting widespread piracy and the loss of rights. You don't fool me, Mike. You might fool some people with your double-talk, but not me. I'm bullshit proof.
Yet again you don't deny that they may make more money, only stating that embracing widespread piracy and reduction in copyright protection is what is being suggested is somehow bullshit in itself. What a pro-priacy point of view.
And don't pretend like your economics wins the day. That's so incredibly stupid. If your economics were so smart, wouldn't people be flocking to you for your wisdom? Some people do, but the vast majority do not. You're on the fringe and you always will be. You'll always be know-it-all sociopath too, but hey, nobody's perfect.
Yet again, you don't deny that the economics may be right, only that because it's not the currently popular view (by what metric precisely?) that we're fringe and thus we'll never win. What a pro-piracy point of view.
I've asked you nicely to respect my privacy, Mike. Why can't you do that?
It's pretty obvious who you are Joe. Why didn't you respect other peoples reasons for privacy, but now consider it convenient? Could it be you don't want to be called up on your prior trolling, foot stomping, hypocritical nature?
"Free" radio was a business model that paid artists and songwriters and studio musicians money every time their songs were paid in exchange for the right to play them.
In actual fact, payola scandals regularly show that getting heard for no cost to listeners is seemingly more valuable than the revenue gained from licensing to labels.
Either the programming was created by the TV network itself or they paid for it and in exchange sold ads, etc.
Which was enabled by letting people watch for free.
They don't compare to someone just taking something you've created it and providing access to it to anyone for free.
They quite clearly do. Both involve instances where it was judged more valuable to business to give something away for free because it was cheap enough to be made up for in other areas like advertising or CD sales.
And so a new troll enters the Techdirt comments. Have a nice stay, don't forget to stock up on that straw, at this rate you'll run out before Monday. Then what will you have to annoy Mike with?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
When have I claimed it ended the debate? I'm asking you to present anything that might refute it, then we can have an honest debate. But you don't want that - you'd rather dismiss it through odd things like saying no links when asking me to provide an argument or evidence against copyright, despite having already done so further up the page.
It's kind of silly that you couldn't type out a paragraph sketching out the argument, you know
It's also kind of silly that you regularly treat commentators like dogs, yet when pressed in any way to back up your position, you're quite happy to deflect. It's kind of silly you selectively ignore posts and comments so that you can pretend something hasn't already been discussed or shown, despite claiming to be a regular reader (I'm gonna go ahead and assume I was right about you being Average Joe). It's kind of silly you couldn't take the the time to write a paragraph describing how I was wrong about the law and didn't understand it, or a paragraph on why you're anonymous after having ridiculed or dismissed other AC's merely for being AC's. Why should I not do the same with you? Why should anyone here put any effort in a debate with you that you're quite happy to just deflect, dismiss or ignore when you feel like it?
This will be the last time I'll reply to you (so long as I don't get itchy fingers).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
Snore! Come back when you can show why I'm wrong about the law and why the linked economists are wrong, then we can have an honest debate where you don't look like a hypocrite.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
Now now Joe, only once you share your argument as to why I know nothing of the law and why what I said before makes me silly. A full rebuttal of the economists who wrote the linked book on the history of copyright and patents as to why their arguments make no sense or don't show that copyright is harmful as well (no links).
I'd quite like to know also why someone who lambasted others for being anonymous is now himself anonymous. Is that you being a bit silly again?
On the post: Senator Wyden Says He'll Block COICA Censorship Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright law
Good luck with proving a view that doesn't exist, or is based on at least a gross misrepresentation of the founders views of copyright.
On the post: Senator Wyden Says He'll Block COICA Censorship Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright law
So obviously fair use exists for no reason. Without fair use, copyright would be perfectly compatible with free speech, and requires no modification. Free speech is regularly cited as being needed to be held back by copyright because God forbid we have too much free speech.
Not to mention the part you quote is hardly accurate, Joe - proximity indicates nothing about the reasons that copyright was adapted, actual documents written by them do. Copyright was written granting certain economic conditions, and it's copyright that must be balanced against free speech - never the other way around.
On the post: The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet
Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
That's what you're saying?
On the post: COICA Back Up For A Vote This Week, So Universal Music Ramps Up Astroturf Campaign
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think he's deliberately trying to create situations where he can pass himself off as the little guy in all this. He's actively trying to get Mike to lose his temper or otherwise so that he can use any reaction to discredit Mike for this silly vendetta.
Either that or he's gone batshit insane.
On the post: COICA Back Up For A Vote This Week, So Universal Music Ramps Up Astroturf Campaign
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So too does Mike, he just doesn't agree with those choices and argues they should do otherwise. Do you not respect his right to free speech, charlatan?
That was funny.
It's silly to think that the choice is a God given right - it isn't, it's one that only exists through law and for expressly limited, economic purposes.
Then provide some. Not logical fallacies like "IP law exists and art is made" but actual, real, verifiable, trustworthy evidence. We've been waiting for some time.
You're being cute, I appreciate that, but I'm not moved. It's sad how much you rely on attacking personal reputation and talking up your personal vendetta into claiming Mike is a sociopath, whilst you constantly badger, demand and generally piss off others for no reason other than attention.
On the post: COICA Back Up For A Vote This Week, So Universal Music Ramps Up Astroturf Campaign
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, you don't deny that by not exercising those rights they may be better off. What a prop-piracy point of view.
Yet again you don't deny that they may make more money, only stating that embracing widespread piracy and reduction in copyright protection is what is being suggested is somehow bullshit in itself. What a pro-priacy point of view.
Yet again, you don't deny that the economics may be right, only that because it's not the currently popular view (by what metric precisely?) that we're fringe and thus we'll never win. What a pro-piracy point of view.
On the post: Hollywood's Strategy For The Future: Pretending The Government Can Save Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA
It's pretty obvious who you are Joe. Why didn't you respect other peoples reasons for privacy, but now consider it convenient? Could it be you don't want to be called up on your prior trolling, foot stomping, hypocritical nature?
Nice try Joe, nice try.
http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=average_joe
On the post: Why Ridiculous Statutory Rates For File Sharing Are Inappropriate
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: MIT's Tech Review Comes Out In Favor Of Patent Trolls
Re: Re: Re: AFAIR Jukispot was the first
On the post: Putting 'Game Pieces' Together Online To Win Something Patented; All The Big Social Gaming Companies Sued
Re:
On the post: Comic Book 'Pirated' On 4Chan, Author Joins Discussion... Watches Sales Soar
Re: Re:
In actual fact, payola scandals regularly show that getting heard for no cost to listeners is seemingly more valuable than the revenue gained from licensing to labels.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/payola-or-how-to-undermine-your-own-argum ent-to-congress.ars?
Which was enabled by letting people watch for free.
They quite clearly do. Both involve instances where it was judged more valuable to business to give something away for free because it was cheap enough to be made up for in other areas like advertising or CD sales.
On the post: Fallacy Debunking: Successful New Business Model Examples Are The 'Exception'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Fallacy Debunking: Successful New Business Model Examples Are The 'Exception'
Re:
On the post: Court Rejects Probation Rules On Teen That Ban Him From Using Social Networks Or Instant Messaging Programs
http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/1/worthington.php
http://wiki.openrightsgr oup.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
On the post: Court Allows German Website To Link To Software Company's Website Five Years Later
Re: Re:
On the post: Court Allows German Website To Link To Software Company's Website Five Years Later
Re:
http://www.h-online.com/newsticker/news/item/Heise-vs-the-music-industry-German-appeal-cour t-rejects-link-ban-1108835.html
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
It's also kind of silly that you regularly treat commentators like dogs, yet when pressed in any way to back up your position, you're quite happy to deflect. It's kind of silly you selectively ignore posts and comments so that you can pretend something hasn't already been discussed or shown, despite claiming to be a regular reader (I'm gonna go ahead and assume I was right about you being Average Joe). It's kind of silly you couldn't take the the time to write a paragraph describing how I was wrong about the law and didn't understand it, or a paragraph on why you're anonymous after having ridiculed or dismissed other AC's merely for being AC's. Why should I not do the same with you? Why should anyone here put any effort in a debate with you that you're quite happy to just deflect, dismiss or ignore when you feel like it?
This will be the last time I'll reply to you (so long as I don't get itchy fingers).
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few comments
I'd quite like to know also why someone who lambasted others for being anonymous is now himself anonymous. Is that you being a bit silly again?
Next >>